Essay:Relative Quality of Conservapedia, Wikipedia and RationalWiki

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Essay.svg This essay is an original work by User:Totnesmartin.
It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas.
Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights.
Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts.

'For the original version of this idea, please go here. Concept and scoring method created by Aaron Sherman.

To create an objective comparison of online wiki-based encyclopedias, a points system can be used to "score" selected articles. This page is an attempt at following Aaron Sherman's of comparing Conservapedia and Wikipedia. I'm also going to chuck in a few other similar ones, such as Creationwiki and Tinwiki.

Points[edit]

1 point for:

  • External references, either online or printed material, excluding blogs and personal pages (eg facebook pages)
  • An introduction with links.
  • Specific references for particular statements.
  • Specific references in every section.
  • At least two categories (not counting automatically-generated categories)

1 point deducted for:

  • "citation needed" tags, other bias templates, pages protected from editing.
  • Articles consisting of fewer than 50 words.
  • Copies of public domain material.

Pages not counted:

  • Administrative (WP), debate (CP), fun (RW) and similar pages. basically, just the facts, ma'am.

11 November 2007[edit]

Wikipedia[edit]

TOTAL: 7

Conservapedia[edit]

TOTAL: 4

RationalWiki[edit]

TOTAL: 6

CreationWiki[edit]

TOTAL: 2

TinWiki[edit]

TOTAL: 6

Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Essay:Relative_Quality_of_Conservapedia,_Wikipedia_and_RationalWiki&oldid=468678"